Advertisement

Exploring the Validity of an Instrument to Measure the Perceived Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications with Educational Potential

  • Tihomir Orehovački
  • Snježana Babić
  • Mario Jadrić
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8523)

Abstract

The aim of the work presented in this paper was to examine to what extent the subjective measuring instrument supports the assessment of all relevant facets of the quality in use in the context of Web 2.0 applications. For that purpose, two scenario-based studies were conducted. In both studies users were observed during their interactions with two Web 2.0 applications that are widely used in educational settings. Data analysis has verified the validity of the post-use questionnaire at various levels of the conceptual model. Findings of empirical studies together with implications for researchers and practitioners are presented and discussed.

Keywords

Web 2.0 Applications Perceived Quality in Use Post-use Questionnaire Empirical Findings 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., Kennedy, G.: Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education 59(2), 524–534 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bubaš, G., Orehovački, T., Balaban, I., Ćorić, A.: Evaluation of Web 2.0 Tools in the e-Learning Context: Case Studies Related to Pedagogy and Usability. In: Rudak, L., Diks, K., Madey, J. (eds.) University Information Systems - Selected Problems, pp. 259–277. Difin SA, Warsaw (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buisine, S., Besacier, G., Najm, M., Aoussat, A., Vernier, F.: Computer-supported creativity: Evaluation of a tabletop mind-map application. In: Harris, D. (ed.) HCII 2007 and EPCE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4562, pp. 22–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, J.: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1), 155–159 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Den Exter, K., Rowe, S., Boyd, W., Lloyd, D.: Using Web 2.0 Technologies for Collaborative Learning in Distance Education - Case Studies from an Australian University. Future Internet 4(1), 216–237 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Downes, S.: E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine – Education and Technology in Perspective (2005), http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
  7. 7.
    Dwivedi, Y.K., Ramdani, B., Williams, M.D., Mitra, A., Williams, J., Niranjan, S.: Factors influencing user adoption of Web 2.0 applications. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management 7(1), 53–71 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    García-Martín, J., García-Sánchez, J.-N.: Patterns of Web 2.0 tool use among young Spanish people. Computers & Education 67, 105–120 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartshorne, R., Ajjan, H.: Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 21(3), 183–198 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Orehovački, T.: Development of a Methodology for Evaluating the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6949, pp. 382–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orehovački, T.: Perceived Quality of Cloud Based Applications for Collaborative Writing. In: Pokorny, J., et al. (eds.) Information Systems Development – Business Systems and Services: Modeling and Development, pp. 575–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Orehovački, T.: Proposal for a Set of Quality Attributes Relevant for Web 2.0 Application Success. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 319–326. IEEE Press, Cavtat (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orehovački, T., Bubaš, G., Konecki, M.: Web 2.0 in Education and Potential Factors of Web 2.0 Use by Students of Information Systems. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 443–448. IEEE Press, Cavtat (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orehovački, T., Bubaš, G., Kovačić, A.: Taxonomy of Web 2.0 Applications with Educational Potential. In: Cheal, C., Coughlin, J., Moore, S. (eds.) Transformation in Teaching: Social Media Strategies in Higher Education, pp. 43–72. Informing Science Press, Santa Rosa (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Evaluating the Perceived and Estimated Quality in Use of Web 2. 0 Applications. The Journal of Systems and Software 86(12), 3039–3059 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Exploring the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications: The Case of Mind Mapping Services. In: Harth, A., Koch, N. (eds.) ICWE 2011. LNCS, vol. 7059, pp. 266–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Orehovački, T., Žajdela Hrustek, N.: Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure the Usability of Educational Artifacts Created with Web 2.0 Applications. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8012, pp. 369–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Reilly, T.: What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software (2005), http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
  20. 20.
    Pang, M., Suh, W., Hong, J., Kim, J., Lee, H.: A New Web Site Quality Assessment Model for the Web 2.0 Era. In: Murugesan, S. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications, pp. 387–410. IGI Global, Hershey (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sassano, R., Olsina, L., Mich, L.: Modeling Content Quality for the Web 2.0 and Follow-on Applications. In: Murugesan, S. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications, pp. 371–386. IGI Global, Hershey (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simões, L., Gouveia, L.B.: Web 2.0 and Higher Education: Pedagogical Implications. In: 4th International Barcelona Conference on Higher Education (2008), http://www2.ufp.pt/~lmbg/com/lsimoes_guni08.pdf
  23. 23.
    Vallance, M., Towndrow, P.A., Wiz, C.: Conditions for Successful Online Document Collaboration. TechTrends 54(1), 20–24 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tihomir Orehovački
    • 1
  • Snježana Babić
    • 2
  • Mario Jadrić
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Organization and InformaticsUniversity of ZagrebVaraždinCroatia
  2. 2.Polytechnic of RijekaRijekaCroatia
  3. 3.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of SplitSplitCroatia

Personalised recommendations